How do I achieve Minolta Autocord image quality with a view camera?

[Jeffrey Goggin]

A recent review of my favorite images surprised me when I realized the majority of them had been shot using a humble Minolta Autocord TLR and NOT my medium-form at view camera. Laugh if you must but the Autocords that I own have the ability to capture a bitingly sharp image yet also impart a rounded, almost 3D-like qua lity that I am unable to duplicate when shooting with my view camera.

Obviously, it must be the lens that's responsible for this quality and to that e nd, I've tried a variety of older uncoated, single-coated and multi-coated lense s, all without success. Recently, I have bought and rented a handful of modern lenses and while they've been able to yield an impressive degree of sharpness, t he "3D" quality that I want simply isn't there.

What's the secret? I enjoy the process of shooting with a view camera and would hate to give mine up but unless I can find at least one lens that can capture a n image with Autocord-like qualities, it'll have to go. Ideally, I'd like to fi nd a few lenses to cover the 55mm to 150mm range, but if I'm limited to just one , it would need to be in the 75mm to 100mm range since this is what I use most o f the time.

Any suggestions or pointers will be greatly appreciated!

[Glenn Kroeger]

Jeffrey:

There have been a number of discussions of medium format vs. LF lens sharpness on this forum. Most of the responses are subjective. I have just finished testing a 55mm Apo-Grandagon on an ArcaSwiss 69FC. Resolution maxed out at 75 lp/mm which is not only outstanding, but is also just at the diffraction limit at the corresponding f-stop.

Medium format lenses peak at wider f-stops, but for most of my scenic work, I need the smaller stops for DOF anyway, so the MF lenses don't hold any advantage.

Some tips:

You need to find the "sweet spot" f-stops for your lens. For my 55, it is f/11-f/16... so I try to use no smaller than f/16 unless DOF demands.

Use good, modern roll film holders (Toyo, Linhof, Horseman, Wista). Old graflex goodies from the parts bin just don't work as well.

We all have a built in bias for our "old favorite" images. For a fair test, you must shoot the Minolta side-by-side with the view camera using the same film and lighting. Then do an honest blind test to see if the "3D" quality is really from the Minolta, or from your favorite subjects.

[Jeffrey Goggin]

Some more info: I'm using a Toyo 23G with Toyo's 6x7 and 6x9 backs. I have modified a dark slide to mask off a 6x6 area and often shoot this way because I like the square format. I've shot direct comparisons to my Autocords -- real images, not test targets or newspapers -- and the "sweet spot" for my three is f/8 through f/16, with f/11 being perhaps the absolute sharpest of all.

I know lenses designed for medium-format cameras are generally sharper than large-format lenses but a lot of the lenses I've used were really medium-format lenses in disguise because they couldn't cover much more than 2x3. I have also shot with a (rented) 55mm Grandagon and while I was also floored by its sharpness, it doesn't have the 3D quality that my three Autocords seem to have in abundance. Only one lens that I've ever used has come close -- a 100mm/f2.8 Zeiss planar -- but sadly, it wasn't for sale. I eventually found another one but it didn't perform nearly as well as the one I'd borrowed so I sold it.

Unlike many people, I can get by with a fairly small image circle as I shoot primarily 6x6 and 6x7 and use only a small range of movement. I have thought about gutting an Autocord for the lens and then having it mounted in a shutter (or adapting the existing shutter to work outside the body) but haven't done it because I don't think the image circle's large enough to allow much, if any, in the way of movements.

Lastly, the Autocord images that I referred to are not "old favorites" but ones I've shot as recently as last week. Over the past two years, I've found myself reaching for an Autocord increasingly more often and my Toyo increasingly less often. Like I said, I'd really hate to give up on using a view camera but despite the Autocords' many limitations, they're the cameras that are coming up with the results these days.

[William Marderness]

I wonder if the 3D quality you notice is due to subtle flare. Flare does not lower sharpness (hence, your Autocord images are sharp), but it can give a "romantic" quality, much like a weak fog filter. I also have an Autocord. I wonder if a weak fog filter, such as a Tiffen or Harrison 1/2 grade, would reproduce the 3-D quality with your view camera.

[Dan Kreithen]

I think I know what you mean by the 3D impression that some lenses impart - when used in the correct manner. I've had a few lenses that give me the same "wow" factor - a 6 element 35mm Summicron (not the last pre-aspheric, but the one before), a Rollei 2.8F Planar, an 80mm Rollei Planar PQ, a Zeiss 100mm/f2.8 Planar for the Graflex XL, the Grandagon 58mm/f5.6 for the same camera, and, to a certain extent, the 100mm/f3.5 for the Fuji 690 (the old one, a Tessar), and a Nikkor- M 105mm/f3.5 (also a Tessar). None of the large format lenses that I have owned (with the exception of the Nikkor-M) have given the same impression (which I favor). It may have something to do with how you use these lenses. For example, the Summicron mentioned above was great for this when used at closer distances (3m-10m) at moderate f- stops, but definitely did not maintain this performance at infinity or wide open. Many "view camera" type pictures are the "Get it all in focus" types...for which every lens I've ever used doesn't give a "3-D" impression. Something to do with the sharp parts of the picture that contrast with unsharp areas, perhaps. View cameras tend not to be used this way. Medium format SLRs and TLRs, on the other hand, are often used for portraits and other types of photos which value an unsharp background, which makes the sharp foreground look more "3-D" (perhaps). Could this be what's going on?

[Jeffrey Goggin]

Hmmm ... I don't think flare is an issue (I always use a lens hood and also shade the camera with my hat during each exposure) but Dan may be onto something with his observation about focus distance. Most of the images I shoot with my Autocords are focused much closer than infinity but then, that's also the case with my view camera since I shoot about the same way (slow and very methodical) with either camera. I shoot a lot more close-in detail shots than grand panoramas and I'd guess that most of my shots are of subjects in the 5m to 30m range. <img scr=http://www.mindspring.com/~audidudi/PHOTOs/Sunflower-Mine-Smelter- detail.jpg> Although it suffers greatly by comparison to the original, the image I posted above is a good example of the kind of subjects I like to shoot -- fwiw, the focus distance was ~1.5m -- and it also gives you a brief hint of the sort of "3D" quality I'm after. Perhaps I should try some lenses designed for macro work instead of general purpose ones?

[Jeffrey Goggin]

Oops ... I guess that didn't work. For the curious, here's a link to the image: http://www.mindspring.com/~audidudi/PHOTOs/Sunflower-Mine-Smelter-deta il.jpg

[Jeffrey Goggin]

Here's hoping that the third time's the charm...

http://www.mindspring.com/~audidudi/gear.jpg

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think you just need to find the right lens for your view camera.

I find that Heliar-type lenses are very good at producing that stereoscopic effect. Try a Voigtlander Heliar (coated if you can find one) or if you can find a defunct Kodak Medalist, take the 100mm/3.5 Ektar from it, which is an excellent coated Heliar-type lens. I have a Heliar 360/4.5 that I like for 8x10" portraits, and a 250/4.5 Heliar for 6x6cm. I've also adapted the 100/3.5 Ektar for 35mm use. There are some test shots at:

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/medalist/

[Dan Kreithen]

Yes, I believe that the Kodak heliar-type lenses are very similar in formulation to the Planars found on Rollei TLRs (and also to the 100mm/f3.5 Planar for the XL that I mentioned above). Interestingly, the XL Planar that I had produced this sort of effect, but only in the right lighting conditions, and, again, at certain distances and apertures. I don't think it is surprising that lenses have a "sweet spot" for aperture, but it is perhaps interesting that they have the same thing for focal distance. I would also seek out the aforementioned Nikkor-M, which is a medium format view camera lens (no longer produced). If you get a good sample, this sort of effect can be seen. You won't be surprised by how good a Tessar can be, given your experience with the Autocord, but some people may. If you can find a good sample of the Grandagon 58mm/f5.6, that may be worth investigating also (don't ask me why this lens seems to be so good, despite being 30-40 years old and single-coated, but my 90mm/f8 Super Angulon MC was nothing to write home about).

[Kevin Kemner]

Jeff,

I think the last post is right on. I would look for an older lens in the Xenar,Tessar or Heliar families (uncoated) and I would try shooting without using movements. My guess is that some of the 3D quality you refer to comes from the Autocord's inability to be corrected the way your Toyo can.

Good Luck

[Chuck_1686]

Another good Heliar type lens to try is the Ektar 105mm f3.7. Similar to the Medalist lens. Came with a lot of 2x3 Graphics and should be easy to find. Some are coated also.

[james mickelson]

My question is whether you are using a good loupe, focussing properly, and if your camera has been aligned properly and the roll film holder has been aligned with the camera back. Dedicated MF cameras such as autocords and mamiyas and hassy's are aligned at the factory. The lenses are aligned when built. And the different formats are made for different types of shooting. And we always have a liking for a certain camera and that usually colors how we see. If you are happy with your autocord then by all means get rid of the LF camera. Buy a second or third or forth autocord. More power to you. I don't see where there is even a question here. Sounds like your mind is already made up. No need to bash LF because you lean toward MF. But why were you using a large format field camera as a MF roll film camera with a lens that wasn't designed for field work? Obviously the quality wasn't there in the first place. But if you want to use the LF camera for what it designed to do, with a decent lens and use it with 4x5 film, then the autocord won't stand a chance at the same enlargement ratio as the LF. You are using the LF camera, with an inferior lens, with roll film. But that isn't a big deal. Get rid of the LF camera and stick to MF because that's what it sounds like you want to do anyway.

[Jeffrey Goggin]

Hmmm ... the reason I shoot with a view camera is not to get a larger film size but to manipulate the plane of focus with movements. I use rollfilm instead of sheetfilm for a number of reasons and I don't see what my personal preference for shooting in a square format has to do with the question I asked. That said...

No, I don't use a loupe (I use a monocular viewer instead); Yes, I've verified that the relationship between the ground-glass and film back is correct and No, I'm not presently using inferior lenses. I bought the Toyo because 1) I got a very good deal on it and 2) I don't shoot just in the field but a little bit of everything.

As for my "bashing LF," I've reread my original question and frankly, I'm at a loss as to how you came to that conclusion. All I'm looking for is some information about what lens(es) might offer the same sort of image quality I've grown accustomed to getting from my Autocord...

Speaking of which, I appreciate the pointers from everyone else and I will check out the various lens suggestions as they become available to me.

[David Brown]

Jeffrey,

Consider yourself lucky. You've found two things that work for you: your Minolta Autocord and your view camera. I can't imagine it would cost too much for Steve Grimes to mount an Autocord lens in a modern shutter and give you the best of both worlds. Good luck.

[Jeffrey Goggin]

You have a point, but what's the benefit of using an Autocord lens on a view camera (as opposed to leaving it on the Autocord) if the image circle is so small as to preclude the use of any movements?

As best I can tell, the useful image circle of the Autocord's lens is ~2.5", which is fine for a 2.25" square image but not quite enough to permit much tilt or swing. :^(

[Sorin Varzaru]

Jeff, rear centered tilt/swing doesn't require more coverage and it will allow you those shots where everything is in focus. Yeah, rise will not be possible.

[Sorin Varzaru]

Correction, rear tilt/swing combined with a little shift will allow for a tilt/swing effect with no additional coverage required.

[Sorin Varzaru]

I meant :

Correction, rear forward or backward tilt or swing combined with a little fall or rise or shift will allow for a tilt/swing effect with no additional coverage required.

I'm having a bad day ... :-)

[james mickelson]

Yeah. I used a monocular viewer and it was no where near as sharp as when using a good loupe. And I'm just telling you how your question sounded to me. If autocords are your thing, what's the question? We usually see what we want so you probably are predispossed to believing the autocord lenses are better than a normal LF lens. No big there. I feel my LF images will blow most MF images of the paper they're printed on. And I've printed a lot of images over the years. Mine and a lot of others. I've pprinted Lieca images, mamiya images, Hassy images, Imagon images, Nikor images, Canikonolta images and I haven't seen 3d quality in any of them over the others. Sorry but that's my story and I'm stickin to it.

[David A. Goldfarb]

James, I understand what Jeffrey is after. I don't think he's saying that the Autocord produces a "higher quality" image exactly, but that the lens on the Autocord has a certain aesthetic effect, and he's interested in a lens that will produce the same aesthetic effect with a larger neg and the controls of a view camera. I feel the same way about certain lens types, and I seek them out for all the formats I use, and I'm willing to adapt lenses to do it.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I meant to say: "I think I understand what Jeffrey is after" in that first sentence. Didn't mean to come off so harshly.

[Jeffrey Goggin]

Bingo ... David has hit the nail on the head!

[Jim Galli]

Jeffrey, I've read through this thread more than once, fascinated, and in fact bought a Voightlander 21cm Heliar for use with the 5X7. Just finished looking at the first fruits from that lens and think perhaps there is an intangible "something" to it! I'd love to hear an update from you. What has turned up after 5 months. Thanks, and best regards. Jim Galli

[Jeffrey Goggin]

Except for selling all but one of my lenses -- I kept the 100mm/f5.6 Sironar-N so I had something to use on my camera -- nothing much has happened since my post. Most of my free time has been spent sorting out my portfolio and making prints since I have lucked my way into a local gallery and am trying to get serious about selling my work. I have been shooting quite a bit with my view camera recently, though, and while I still prefer the aesthetic quality of my Autocords lens, sometimes there's just no way to get around using movements! If and when I have anything new to report back on this subject, I will...

[Adez]

Hi everyone!
I would try to dubliicate Jeffrey observation about "3D photography". Pleas tell me what type of Autocord you have ?
It seems there a many models ; Autocord LMX, Autocord RG, Autocord CDS ......
I would like to buy one and experiment with it.
Now I have Nikon FM2 (nikkor 1/1.2), Nikon D200 and Olympus 2100, from this - the film FM2 give some light idea about 3D, the digitals are completely flat.
Few years ago I had a Mamiya RB67, and in those days I thought - the larger film format you have, the most 3D impression you have.
Now, from Jeffrey experience, I see, this is not the case.
If you have a Mamiya RB67 pleas compare with it, and ............ maybe I will buy again a RB67 tank :-)

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Actually, I think the larger the film format, the more 3D is pretty much true. There are many factors though, lens, lighting, distance of subject from background...

If you want a TLR, look for an Ikoflex with the Opton Tessar, those area real bargain, I prefer them to Rolleis.

[Jan Pedersen]

Hi everyone!
I would try to dubliicate Jeffrey observation about "3D photography". Pleas tell me what type of Autocord you have ?
It seems there a many models ; Autocord LMX, Autocord RG, Autocord CDS ......
I would like to buy one and experiment with it.
Now I have Nikon FM2 (nikkor 1/1.2), Nikon D200 and Olympus 2100, from this - the film FM2 give some light idea about 3D, the digitals are completely flat.
Few years ago I had a Mamiya RB67, and in those days I thought - the larger film format you have, the most 3D impression you have.
Now, from Jeffrey experience, I see, this is not the case.
If you have a Mamiya RB67 pleas compare with it, and ............ maybe I will buy again a RB67 tank :-)

I don't think the OP is on this forum any longer, the last post before yours was almost 12 years ago.

[Adez]

The photographer mission is to put in 2D the 3D so Jeffrey discovery must be taken serious .
Already I bought a Minolta Autocord from Ebay and I'm impatient to receive it and try it in order to verify Jeffrey statement.

After searching the internet I found that Minolta specialists was conscious about this particular effect and they was trying to perfect this.
It seems it is a particular bokeh similar to human eyes. (bokeh = blur in japanese language)
I hope as soon as possible to show you some prints with Autocord.

Hi Jan - great work, medium format and large format rules :-)

[Ian Greenhalgh]

You'll be disappointed, 3D is far, far more complex an issue than just the bokeh. Lighting, subject-background distance, lens design, coating, there are a lot of factors.

[ramon]

Jeffrey, What modern lenses did you tried? I have read that Rokkor lens is a tessar design.

I have two Autocords, some day I will put them togheter to make a true stereo. My G-claron 305mm makes me very happy.

[Tim Meisburger]

12 year old thread resurrected! I love it. I agree with the Heliar recommendation, FWIW.

[john borrelli]

The lens that gave me the best 3d effect was on a 35mm rangefinder called a voigtlander but made by Cosina in japan. They called the lens a heliar and it was the 50mm f3.5 heliar. I got the best 3d effect at or near maximum aperture which was f3.5. Incidentiy, my favorite lens,regardless of format, for scenic photography.

[Adez]

Conclusion:

1.) 2000 Jeffrey Goggin- How to achieve Minolta Autocord image quality with a view camera.
2.) 2000 David A. Goldfarb - I find that Heliar-type lenses are very good at producing that stereoscopic effect.
3.) 2001 Dan Kreithen - I believe that the Kodak heliar-type lenses are very similar in formulation to the Planars
4.) 2001 Kevin Kemner - My guess is that some of the 3D quality you refer to comes from the Autocord's inability to be corrected the way your Toyo can.
5.) Chuck_1686 - Another good Heliar type lens to try is the Ektar 105mm f3.7. Similar to the Medalist lens.
6.) Tim Meisburger - I agree with the Heliar recommendation
7.) 2008 Peter Blaise - Nothing beats the Minolta HiMatic E for STF Smooth Trans Focus - Minolta has the lens shutter open and close progressively throughout exposure to capture a smooth bokeh.
8.) John Borrelli - The lens that gave me the best 3d effect was on a 35mm rangefinder called a voigtlander but made by Cosina in japan.

So ........ the secret for 3D effect is STF -Smooth Trans Focus ??????????????????
Heliar and Minolta lens design could be the key?

[Ian Greenhalgh]

There is no 'secret' to 3D effect.

The Heliar-type Kodaks are nothing like a Planar, they are Heliars, the two designs are very different.

3D effect is a complex thing, there are many factors, lighting, subject, subject to background distance, they all play a role. The lens also plays a role, but there are again, several factors that affect the lens' ability to produce a 3D effect, micro and macro contrast, which is the result of both the optical design, the physical design (light baffling etc) and the coating(s) among others.

The larger the format you are shooting with, the more pronounced the 3D effect, I have seen lots of 19th century images that had amazing 3D, and they would have been shot with very simple uncoated lenses.

So many factors to consider and there are no 'secrets' or magic bullets.

[premortho]

Er, Voigtlander lenses are/were famous for this quality you are looking for. Some have more, some have less, but all of the ones made for 6X9's on up have this quality. They ground them to get that effect on purpose. not so much on 35's, because the competition, and especially the photo mags went nutso over total sharpness of the image. If you decide to try some Voigtlander lenses, be a little patient, as these were hand ground, so there is a little variance.
Bingo ... David has hit the nail on the head!

[Ian Greenhalgh]

I'm sorry, but I think you're completely wrong. How can you grind a lens to 'get that effect'? Also, Voigtlander used machine spindles for grinding, same as everyone else.

[Rory_5244]

It's micro-contrast rendering. Zeiss designs their lenses to accentuate it, hence the '3D look'. Nikon and Mamiya design their lenses to accentuate macro-contrast, which in turn, imparts a particular look to their lenses as well. Exotic glass elements also impart colour characteristics to lens rendering: Canon Fluorite elements impart a warmer colour cast than the cooler Zeiss lenses, for example. What Zeiss, or any manufacturer, does specifically to impart its classic in-house rendering is indeed a trade secret.

[Adez]

Thanks Rory_5244 for micro-contrast rendering theory of 3D effect.

So.... until now we have 2 "scientific" explanation?
1.) STF - Smooth Trans Focus -perfected by Minolta engineers.
2.) Micro-contrast rendering.

I think the brain create 3D effect like electromagnetic triangulation.
I admit, I know nothing about how is possible to trick the brain with a 2D image but I think "why not............"

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Micro contrast is a part of 3D effect, but it's far from the whole explanation. STF has nothing to do with 3D, it effects bokeh.

Look at this image from 1924:

http://www.shorpy.com/node/14165

http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/SHORPY_10665u.jpg

Uncoated lens so microcontrast isn't anything special, no fancy STf technology, but very 3D indeed.

[Patrick13]

The gross elements I see that are responsible for making an image "pop" like this great motorcycle shot don't involve gear, though specific gear like lenses and format choice would make the effect much easier to achieve. To deconstruct what I see:

- The entire boundary edge is in sharp focus, the silhouette is tight and has a definite cutoff. Too shallow a DOF and you lose the complete edge.
- The background is almost uniformly defocused and airy (i.e. lower contrast and in a different lighting key, high or low, than the subject)

Break either of those two conditions and the pop disappears.

So onto the original question of getting Autocord quality out of a view camera...

For a given framing the larger the format the shallower your DOF will be, you will have to compensate by using a smaller aperture on the view camera. Unless I completely misinterpret what I've read, always a possibility. Without that compensation you'll lose having the silhouette in sharp focus.

Secondly, with view camera movements you'll want to help the background into uniformity and not accent the depth and out of focus areas, which sounds counter-intuitive. I think that if that works you'll actually get better results than from an Autocord.

I'm going to try this this Christmas week with my crown graphic, not a lot of movements there but I can blow through a few sheets for fun experimentation.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

That's an excellent observation Patrick and I very much agree, the entire boundary edge of the subject must be in sharp focus and the separation of subject to background is very important too.

[Adez]

My humble opinion- Smooth Trans Focus is a part of 3D effect in 2D images.
We must understand first how the brain create 3D effect in 3D world.
I suppose the brain create 3D in the same way electromagnetic triangulation work .

The eyes do this trough the approximation of distances and I think this approximation have something to do with focusing objects.
Jeffrey Goggin wonder how to have this effect in large format photography and I believe the secret could be in the lens in the same way in the real world the secret is in the eye.

This isn't only a stereoscopic effect because the effect is here even if we see with only one eye.

Best regards!

[Ian Greenhalgh]

No, human vision interprets 3D through comparing two different viewpoints - we have two eyes!

[Patrick13]

I'm going to stick with my story that it's the silhouette against the uniformity of a background and not any particular quality of the bokeh in that uniformity. It's just as easy for a nice STF lens image to not pop as it is for a regular lens to pop right out. This effect has nothing to do with actual 3D interpretation.

Here's an example of a failed image, nicely done and the background is beautiful... but the hard silhouette is broken and the portrait just sits there and doesn't pop.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobnl/4700094610/

While here's an example of a successful image that breaks all the STF rules with a cluttered and sharp bokeh background but... but the background is uniform and the fully sharp silhouette helps pull the portrait out of the scene and it pops.

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Z/00ZeGs-418641584.jpg

[Adez]

""""No, human vision interprets 3D through comparing two different viewpoints - we have two eyes! """""

:-)

Try to see with only one eye - 3D effect is here anyway.
Focusing is one way telling the brain about distances .... but maybe not the only way.
I prefer to say """I'm not sure""" so my mind will remai open .

[Adez]

As everything involving science the human mind ignore the "oberver".
“What we observe is not Nature herself, but Nature revealed to our method of questioning ” Werner Heisenberg
I thing this sentence can be apllied to every process of knowing.
It is the oberver who make the rules and than if he can't explain something than he will brake the rules.

For Patrick13 -
So everything is about the focus finally :-)

I want to thanks to everybody posting in this forum, with all opinions which I agree and with all opinions which I don't agree I was able to understand more.
I think here are more things we don't know that the things we know.
“…there is not a single concept of which I am certain it will stand the test of time. And I am not certain that I am even on the right track.” Einstein
I suppose this sentence is valid for every time we are saing: "this is so".

[Adez]

Now I have a Minolta Autocord but ..... I found impossible to focus with it (maybe this ebay item which I bought has a problem).
So here is the finish of my journey on Jeffrey Goggin road.

But looking for more information on the internet I found Goethe .
This man was talking about theory of relativity 100 years before Einstein.
Try to understand Goethe theory of light if you dare :-)

Somebody else here who have Autocord ?
How to focus with it easier ?

[BenJT]

The focus lever doesn't move does it? What happens is the lubricant in the focus helical hardens over the years causing it to freeze up. You can fix it yourself, I did one last year, do a Google search for autocord focus stuck, you will find plenty of information, its not complicated or difficult. Or just send it out for a cla.

[Will Frostmill]

This thread has been resurrected once before, so what's a little more?
Anyway, thank you Patrick13, here I finally see an explanation for why I really like certain portraits I've done with a Tesar formula lens with a medium format TLR.

I'm going to stick with my story that it's the silhouette against the uniformity of a background and not any particular quality of the bokeh in that uniformity. It's just as easy for a nice STF lens image to not pop as it is for a regular lens to pop right out. This effect has nothing to do with actual 3D interpretation.

Here's an example of a failed image, nicely done and the background is beautiful... but the hard silhouette is broken and the portrait just sits there and doesn't pop.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobnl/4700094610/

While here's an example of a successful image that breaks all the STF rules with a cluttered and sharp bokeh background but... but the background is uniform and the fully sharp silhouette helps pull the portrait out of the scene and it pops.

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Z/00ZeGs-418641584.jpg

I do think there's a little more to it - maybe having to do with SA outside the sharp center when used wide open helping not just to blur the background, but keep the contrast in the background low as well. (I could make a case that people make their lives difficult when they ramp up the acutance or overdo sharpening when they are chasing pretty bokeh.) But those are quibbles, albeit ones that make me wonder if anyone ever made an autofocus lens that had a Tessar formula.